For Dickens, the belief in irrevocable link between wealth and morality is tenuous to say the least, and "Great Expectations" challenges this widely held view. Dickens champions the Victorian work ethic that salvation and morality lie in hard-work. Dickens wished to shift the role of a gentleman to one of a gentle man; he wanted to shift the emphasis from one of a life of luxury, learning and polished manners, to one of a sense of duty and vocational commitment. Many of Dickens ideas even became integrated later into Disraeli’s paternalistic, one-nation conservatism. Nevertheless, Dickens may not wholly align himself with Burke’s philosophy that Disraeli adopted: “change in order to conserve.” Dickens may be motivated by the attitude to “change because it is right”, rather than to change to conserve the existing social order.
In “The Go-Between” Hartley presents a class based hierarchy under threat and challenged by a new society at the turn of the century. As in “Great Expectations”, Hartley also, like Dickens, uses retrospective first person narration, in “The Go-Between” to present a society in the novel very different from that which Leo rediscovers at the end. Although not a Bildungsroman as such, we see an event that changes the rest of Leo’s life. The use by both authors of retrospective narration enables them to present long-term change, Dickens in Pip’s transformation and Hartley in Societies, allowing the authors more scope for discussion of their viewpoints. Dickens uses Pip’s transformed view of society, and his place in it to put forward his position. Use of first-person narration in “Great Expectations” is a change from omniscient third person narration and is clever in lending immediacy to the action as we find out about events as the character does, we are not told in the retrospect. Dickens older narrator switches between detachment and involvement with the plot, at times stepping in to criticise his younger self with great gusto and censure. This is also used in “The Go-Between”, and along with “Great Expectations”, both narrators intrude into the novels narrative to at times criticise their past actions or build suspense and lend importance to a future event.
In “Great Expectations” the Bildungsroman genre chosen by Dickens, follows a Pip transformed and shaped by the novels events, allowing him to portray a broad spectrum of society; from the landed estate of the wealthy Miss Havisham, the simple contentment of hard-working Joe at the forge, to the idle lifestyle of two gentlemen in the city. Dickens novel does not appear to discuss the aristocracy in great detail beyond the aspirations of Mrs. Pocket, instead focusing more on the lower classes with which Dickens was so fascinated.
Hartley, unlike Dickens, choose to set his novel in the most part in the luxurious, aristocratic, setting of Brandham Hall. There is little plot elsewhere; there is a glimpse of a harsh, competitive, boarding school governed by strict rules of conduct, in which emotion is almost forbid and class and status govern how the boys deal with each other. Were through his curse on Jenkins and Strode, Leo earns the respect and increased status amongst his fellow pupils. The school itself is almost a hierarchy, with the strongest bullying the weakest, there appears to be some of Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” there. The boys admire strength and money, and live in fear of revealing emotion, seen as a weak frailty. It is Leo’s curse and the grand sounding name of his modest home; “Court Place” which he shares with his nervous, reticent, widowed mother, that gain him an invitation from The Maudsley’s.
Brandham Hall however, manages in some ways to cover a broader spectrum of society than “Great Expectations” display of country and city life. As although in essence, the focus is on the upper-echelons of society in the middle and upper classes, rather than those of lower status, whom we see but briefly in the cricket game and supper with the village. With Brandham Hall as his setting, Hartley is able to, and does, represent class distinction in action. Could it be that in the notable absence of regard for the lower classes in the world of the upper classes he is making a similar point to Dickens; that the wealth of the few is based on the exclusion of the many? For example, Triningham the “gentleman farmer” relies on the “working farmer” in Ted Burgess for his living, and that it is only on Leo’s return years later that he remembers the prettiest side to the house, when he was there he was more interested in the outhouses of the backyard.
The distance between “The Hall” and “The Village” is separated not only by wealth and status, but also in the physical landscape there is distance between the two, which almost makes them appear to be separate entities or separate worlds. It is the impoverished middle class in Leo who makes easier the link between the two spheres, by being the messenger between Ted and Marion. This link; an abandonment of the rules that govern the hierarchical structure has devastating consequences, perhaps a warning from Hartley against abandoning the security and sense of place made known by the class structure for centuries. Clearly, Hartley’s views on class and status are more ambiguous than those of Dickens, but overall I believe that Hartley conforms to class assumptions and tries to reaffirm the importance of class and status.
Hartley, however, as we have and will see, has a very different approach to Dickens on the subject of class and status. Like Leo, Hartley seems to look with nostalgia on the long line of Viscount Triningham’s, Hugh being the ninth of these, found engraved in the church. Set against the backdrop of the house of God, a sense of value is placed in the tradition and history that this image invokes. Perhaps even reflecting the feudal belief in God’s acquiescence and ordination of the nobility’s God-given right to rule. In “Great Expectations” there is no such argument present, church seems corrupted by its wealth and emphasis on social position and irrelevant to the working class people who attend every week, some more conscientiously than others. The lower classes such as Joe can not go as they are and as they are comfortable, appearance is important as a display of respect and diffidence. Dickens throughout the rest of the novel then attacks the superficiality of appearance as having any value or importance at all in the judgement of character. For Dickens there is no value in tradition for traditions sake; he was not an unbeliever, but wanted to transform the churches role from order and a means of class control but to real concern and compassion for the people. Dickens would attack appearance as either being a good basis on which to judge character or a good foundation on which to judge strength of Christian conviction. Hartley seems to admire the class distinctions found in church, while Dickens might view it as apposed to Christian belief. Dickens criticises those who aspire to titles as seen by his parody of the Pockets, while Hartley respects those who hold one such as Triningham, and criticises those who aspire to the lifestyle of those who want one in the Maudsleys.
Triningham exemplifies all that was good about the aristocracy; gentle manners, grace and elegance, and treating Leo with the utmost kindness, whom he saves from embarrassment when explaining his title and when Leo is given an inappropriate tie. It is the middle class Marion who exploits and uses Leo, not Triningham, who makes it clear that Leo is a “messenger for the God’s.” Triningham is scarred from his patriotic fight during the lengthily and protracted Boer War, perhaps symbolic of a scarred, fatally flawed, yet loyal and patriotic, aristocracy. Triningham’s early death may also foretell of doomed nobility, and in Marion, conquered by Ted, the working farmer, that in the future the lower classes will usurp the higher ones.
This is again shown by the fact that the 10th and subsequent 11th Viscount Triningham’s are descendants of Ted, not of Hugh, and so are illegitimate. The ancestral lineage has been broken. Whether or not this embodies the idea that the old aristocracy having survived, yet modified, by the events of a turbulent half-century and that the hierarchical order has prevailed even in the face of struggle; or whether this actually signifies a “healthy merger of the classes” (Anne Mulkeen) is a matter for debate. Some may argue that in the 11th Viscount Triningham we see an aristocracy besieged, and a shadow of what it once was. The 11th Viscount looks like Ted, a working farmer, and Leo notes none of Triningham’s natural grace. The 11th Viscount avoids the past in Marion, rather than finding refuge and console in it as it may be seen that the 9th Viscount had, and the 11th is reduced to living in less that half the house, with the rest let to a girl’s school. While others may still see by the aristocracy’s survival, despite being found reduced in importance, as an enduring symbol of history and tradition and irrefutable evidence of its value. Even so, for Dickens, as found in “Great Expectations” aristocracy and the wealthy need to accept their place and duty toward wider society.
Triningham’s chivalric, but perhaps unreal sentiment that “nothing is ever a Lady’s fault” is perhaps the reasoning behind his acceptance of a Marion already “tainted” by the touch of a man, saving her from disgrace, and explains his unsuspecting attitude before the relationship was revealed. Triningham’s assumption of Marian’s innocence is charming, yet conceivably recognisable as ignorance. Marian seems to ridicule him almost, as even she admits his loyalty, whilst admitting that she was planning on carrying on her illicit affair with Ted whilst married to Triningham, and seeing his suicide as an expression of Ted’s “weakness” rather than of his accepting responsibility. Also Hartley portrays a caring, nervous and somewhat ineffective mother in Mrs. Colston, who perhaps fails to understand the boy she sees so little of. Tragically, if she had followed Leo’s confused intension in his instructions than the tragedy may have been averted, or at least Leo might not have lost his innocence and faith in the world of human emotions with which Ted explained his love for Marion and “spooning”. Presumably Triningham would not blame Mrs. Colston at all for Leos tragedy. Triningham’s chivalry then is not rewarded and this outcome can perhaps be seen to be why Hartley may be criticising the destruction of good society. At the same time, Dickens aim in writing “Great Expectations” was to shift the meaning of being a “Gentleman” away from that of petty class distinction, polished manners and a life of leisure to one of social responsibility and vocational commitment; of gentlemen not just enjoying their position in society, but working to improve the position and welfare of others. This is shown by Pips dramatic transformation from Gentleman to gentle man, and the moral regeneration that is the result of Pip finding employment.
Class and status are seemingly interlinked with, and the result of money from the start. The servants at Brandham are even deferential to Leo, who is not expected to pick up or fold his own clothes; Marcus even tells him not too! Leo is not rich in comparison to the Maudsleys but is in terms of society at the time, the social hierarchy must be obeyed. Hartley, in “The Go-Between” also presents the aspiring middle class in the Maudlseys whose social rise is the result of money. Although, arguably, Hartley’s Maudsleys do not gain greatly from their rise, which contributes to the mental downfall of Mrs. Maudsley in Marion’s affair, with Deny’s and Marcus later dying in the Great War, the Maudsleys do not last, and it is a Triningham who holds possession of the house when Leo returns after his long absence. Despite the 11th Viscount being a descendent of Ted and Marion, the title has endured, the Maudsleys have not. Hartley thus argues that there is more to class distinction then money, more too aristocratic superiority than monetary wealth; indeed Triningham is less well off than the Maudsleys, however they still feel the need to defer to him, as if he were the head of the household. The Maudsleys not only feel insecure, but recognise Trininghams supremacy.
The power of money to affect social status and class is perhaps more apparent in “Great Expectations” as Hartley criticised the effect, while Dickens recognised it and gave it expression in creating Pip. As when the local trade’s people hear of Pips newfound wealth they give him their full attention even to a comical extent, as Pip enjoys the effects of letting on about his expectations; Pip realises that money is connected to power and takes pleasure in exerting his power over others. Dickens, in showing Pips dwindling morality, with the rot setting on receipt of his expectations, presents how money, and thus class gain do not benefit him in any way, except when Pip used his money to benefit another, as his buying Herbert a partnership later provides him with happiness and fulfilment. This is shown by the end of the end of the first of the three parts of the novel ending with the Miltonic phrase “the world lay spread before me” in his epic poem “Paradise Lost”; thus an analogy is drawn between Pip’s journey to the city and Adam and Eve’s expulsion from the Garden of Eden. Both are travelling from a place of serenity to, in effect, a cruder, darker place. Pip is optimistic but is shocked when he arrives in a dirty, filthy, squalid, criminal and treacherous London, there is conflict between Pip’s romantic view, such as of his being designed by Miss. Havisham for Estella, and the earthy reality of his situation;
Dickens appeals to the self-interest of the upper classes when arguing for them to spread their good fortune. Wemmick offers an interesting aspect to money as presented by Dickens in “Great Expectations”; he is driven by it in the city; discarding his comfortable country morality and generosity, for the mask of “portable property”. Wemmick shows no compunction in building up his wealth from deceased criminals; for him this is not depraved but common sense. Money also drives Jaggers, and gives Miss. Havisham an importance she would otherwise not hold, although it led to her being conned by Compeyson. In “Great Expectations” money is often useless; it does not lead to happiness, morality or contentment, the appropriation and desire for it, is the result of and response to selfish greed.
Leo allows class and status to affect his opinion of people and theirs of him, and recognises this as so. One critic even called him a “social snob” (Peter Bien), markedly changing his opinion of Triningham when he hears that he is a Viscount, and Leo also when caught by the angry Ted for sliding down his straw stack, diverts his attention and anger by letting him know that he is from the Hall, and is not surprised by Ted’s transformation. This even suggests that the standards of behaviour expected are different depending on class, and that it is to be expected, and may even be justified for the upper classes to take advantage of the lower ones; and slide on their straw stacks without permission.
“Great Expectations” is also a society in which class and status command power, and even give characters status above the law. For instance, the nature of Miss. Havisham’s injuries from which she later died could be seen to be suspicious, as Pip takes her money, and leave of her, yet goes back up to her without telling anyone and then she catches fire and he is found holding her to the floor. Of course Pip had nothing to do with her death but was not even questioned perhaps because of his “gentleman” status. It is perhaps ironic then that Magwitch choose to make Pip a gentlemen rather than himself, and thus make Pip seemingly above the law that he had suffered under. As with Compeyson and Magwitch; Compeyson was let off with a slight sentence because he appeared the articulate Gentleman, whereas Magwitch got a harsher sentence because he was the stereotypical villain. Later we see that Compeyson, as Magwitch predicted, will always be a liar and as Magwitch predicted on the marshes, “will die a liar”. Compeyson did, but Magwitch in contrast was a changed character by the end, yet in appearance was much the same and found no mercy. Dickens again criticises a society in which appearance decides an individual’s importance.
Leo only once hears Mr. Maudsley call Mrs. Maudsley be her first name, when she is about to investigate the outhouses in the pouring rain. This may well indicate that both Mr. and Mrs. Maudsley are aware of the illicit affair going on in the outhouses, but that they have been unwilling of revealing the truth for fear of the truth ending hopes of a very advantageous marriage. Their placing of self-interest before morality is also replicated by Jaggers in “Great Expectations” who is more interested in his personal prestige of being a great lawyer than in the interests of justice. The pursuit of money may well be seen to be criticised in both novels. In “Great Expectations” the search leads to dissatisfaction rather than contentment, while in “The Go-Between” the hunt leads to subversion of the order and security of natural hierarchical society.
Moreover, Leo even has the honesty to recognise that the transformation in his opinion of Triningham was not too dissimilar from Ted’s of his trespassing. For Pip, the distinction is clearer when his attitudes change totally with the coming of his “Great Expectations”. Overnight, his views toward the forge, Joe and Biddy, became increasingly dismissive. Once Pip loses sight of Joe’s humanity, it is clear that he has lost his own. The difference between the two novels is that, in Great Expectations, Dickens encourages his readers to look beyond appearance, which is deceptive and fake as seen by the trial of Magwitch and Compeyson; and to look beyond the sham of status and class denoting an individual’s quality of character. In contrast, Hartley’s “The Go-Between” does not renounce the great importance of class and status governing the conduct of individuals within wider society. The braking of the rules governing society and class results in a most unfortunate death, Leo for the rest of his known life rejecting emotion and human relationships, and the mental breakdown of Mrs. Maudsley. Hartley appears to look with reverence upon the distinctions that had governed Britain for centuries, and may even be suggesting by the long and protracted imperialistic Boer War which scarred Triningham that the breakdown of the social structure, already begun, will result in ultimate failure and humiliation for Britain.
Hartley again presents class and social status in an interesting way and criticises social mobility by challenging the life of the gentry as middle-class Marion challenges the aristocratic values of emotions repressed and bodies covered up. Marion, by riding Leo’s new bike into the room will be committing a socially daring action, as she would need to expose her legs in some way. Hartley presents Marian, although middle class and aspiring to the aristocratic lifestyle, as confronting social constraints on her behaviour inherent from aristocratic values. That she wants to ‘have her cake and eat it’ as the expression goes.
It may be asserted that Hartley is not supportive of the confrontation as the Green Bike that she would be riding in to the room is “misshapen and misused” as the bike reminded Leo of a “little mountain sheep with curly horns, its head lowered in apology or defence.” Perhaps an apology for its rider’s indecency, and a defence that it’s not its fault! A further perspective is that the green bike is a reflection of Leo; misshapen by being misused by Ted and Marian, later defending himself for years against the memory of what happened to Ted and the emotion that caused it, a guilt which he is apologetic for, and has had no consolation, so he since then has put up barriers and defences against the emotions and feelings that led to Ted’s demise.
For Dickens, social status and class, as shaped only by money and material possessions, are worthy of no reverence beyond what an individual of that class deserves by features of character and facts of action. Joe, through his simplicity and insistence on looking for the good in others, may well be the character that a reader may well most warm too, more so than the wealthy, exploitative, unfeeling Miss Havisham. When Joe mercifully tells Magwitch, who has just stolen “wittles” from the forge:
“God knows you’re welcome to it…We don’t know what you’ve done, but we wouldn’t have you starved to death for it”
And as Dickens describes how no one was interested in seeing him when he returned to the hulks, as Magwitch has done this good act in exonerating Pip from all suspicion, albeit through a lie, we do have sympathy for this “lonely” man. Joe expresses the most humane feelings a reader might feel. Dickens seems to be seeking to defend Joe for not interfering with Pips beatings from the tickler, as he talks of his cruel childhood at the hands of a drunken father and says how he wishes he could take Pip’s beatings instead of him. Joe certainly isn’t poor as Mrs. Joe’s ravings might seem to suggest; he is able later in the novel to pay off the debts Pip has amassed, and as a blacksmith owns the forge and house, Orlick is worse off than he, a skilled trader.
Joe has some status in his profession but appears “out of place” outside the forge, uncomfortable in a suit. He asks Pip to remember him as he was at the forge on his one visit to London to see him, as he feels that Pip will not find half so much fault in him there. Joe seems to see any aspiration to a higher class or way of life, as lending to his own insecurity and weakness. Joe is contented and happy with his class and hard work with it, and is even proud of it as Biddy tells a surprised Pip. Plausibly, an argument against Dickens call for more social mobility if the working class is happy as it is, until exposed to wealth as Pip was at Miss. Havisham’s. Pip even wishes at one moment that he had not received “great expectations”; if Dickens is to so glorify the life of the working class, why does he argue for an escape route from it? An interesting question, the answer results from the fact that Dickens message is one that there is no intrinsic moral, cultural or natural superiority to people who have money; to people of a higher class. In this way, more equality should be granted to people with less money because a more inclusive society is a better society. A society that bases its judgements less on class and status will be more just. A society in which more are able to read and write will be a more prosperous, healthy society. In short, Dickens may give great credit to the grandeur and validity of a hard days work, but does not see this as a justification for oppression.
Hartley on the other hand recognises but does not exemplify Ted’s hard work with the labourers on the farm. Just as emphasised by Hartley is the importance of men such as Triningham and Mr. Maudsley meeting to discuss “affairs of state” which Leo clearly finds a little tedious. Whilst Hartley presents readers with the ease of the life of wealthy country-folk, of endless social engagements and activities, Hartley does not appear to condemn his upper-class characters for lack of consideration or condescension to the village who are seen once a year as a matter of routinely duty. Leo, the character whom tells events, seems neither surprised nor unhappy with the way in which the lower-classes are treated. Instead he basks in the idyllic countryside of the surrounding hall, in the increasingly hot temperature he is interested in throughout and shows little concern for the feelings of servants. Mr. Maudsley appears to be the only one who does any work toward earning a living, while Denys’ and Marion never seem to show any need to consider a career. Both the unemployed Marion and the employed Ted find time to have destructive affairs. No distinct value ever seems to be granted to work for its own sake. Whether a person needs to work or not seems to simply be an extension of their social status or class.
The value of hard work is again shown to be embraced by Dickens, when we see that Pip’s moral decline starts with his life of dissipation and idleness in the city, as I stated earlier he disowns Joe, and loses sight of the simple humility, intrinsic value, and happiness found in hard work. While his abandonment plagues his conscience at times, it does not create any movement in his feet. As Pip sees it, a gentleman is free of links with the working class; he allows his status to define him, only to find with disgust and dismay that his status is based on a convict of the class he has severed all ties with. Pips moral regeneration then starts with the tenderness and care he shows Magwitch in his visits whilst his death is being awaited. Pip then becomes so ill, Dickens using this as a symbol of the “old” Pip dying to be replaced by a newer Pip, although with some of his old traits of snobbery; he expects to be welcomed at the forge and plans to marry Biddy, even so, he is to be saved by the partnership he brought Herbert. As Dickens working notes read; “the one good thing he did in his prosperity, the only thing that endures and bears good fruit.”
In “The Go-Between” Hartley may even be seen to be critical of earnt wealth such as that of the Maudsley’s, as they are insecure in their social position. While Triningham, the natural owner of Brandham Hall does not have the money to keep it, they simply rent it off him; a house that is not theirs. Yet, when he is there, Mrs. Maudsley insists on deferring almost every decision on her guest in an almost laughable way, and when a decision is reached, when she announces plans for the day’s diversions “it (sounds) like a command”. Hartley seems to criticise the Maudsley’s for aspiring to an aristocratic lifestyle, and failing to reach their goal.
In “Great Expectations” Dickens also is severely critical of the middle classes, represented in the novel by the Pockets, who are ridiculed for trying to hide their lower social status by imitating the aristocracy. Mrs. Pocket is the embodiment of this, as her father had a Knighthood, which makes him a member of the nobility, but is not a title that can be inherited, but he brought his daughter up as if she were a Baroness. Pretentiously, she feels that she has married beneath her in marrying someone from the middle classes in Matthew, when she herself can be seen as middle class. She keeps dropping her handkerchief, has unruly children, suffers financial difficulties, her servants take advantage of them by ordering to much food and selling the leftovers on, and above all, are title-less. They are just as useless, self-important and indulgent as the aristocracy; yet do not have a title that allows them a living and perhaps even respectability in this class obsessed society. Matthew Pocket however, is not degenerate. He does not dote on and pretend to care about Miss. Havisham for the self-interested motive of gaining from her death as her other relations do, and he earns a living in tuition, yet is seen as a comical figure in insisting on trying to lift himself up by his hair.
Conceivably, criticism of the middle classes for their pompous aspirations and ostentatious behaviour is an argument shared by Hartley and Dickens. Although for different purposes; as Hartley censures the middle classes for reaching for the unreachable he exalts, while Dickens denounces the middle classes for imitating an upper class he sees as idle, unproductive, and useless.
Throughout both “Great Expectations” and “The Go-Between” social status and class are strong factors that govern relationships between characters in both novels. Leo is unusually close to his mother for the period which can be seen as a virtue of unity possessed in greater abundance by the lower classes, or simply because his father is dead. In “Great Expectations” Joe and Pip are unusually close (“Ole’ Pip ole’ chap”) for two who are not related while they are of the same class, yet this closeness is quickly dispelled by Pips social rise (“Sir.”) and by his distancing himself from Joe. Immediately there is a distance created between the two, making it difficult for Joe to shake himself from calling his old friend “Sir” and trying to, in expression, imitate Pips education that he has not recieved. Instantly, the reader hates the difference that has alienated the two characters, the society that treats individual according to their class and status, and the respect that the working class Joe feels he should be paying Pip, when the reader knows all to well that it is Pip who should be being deferential toward Joe. Pip even realises this after a moment or two’s reflection after Joe’s departure.
Both novels do seem to display at a number of points people of the same social classes supporting each other; there is great camaraderie within the village cricket team in “The Go-Between” and the team is well supported by spectators from the village, while in “Great Expectations” the villagers all enjoy a good laugh at Pip’s expense as Trabb’s boy impersonates him. The lower classes seem to have a great communal spirit amidst them in both novels, as they share and support each other through their struggles. In “The Go-Between” those of a higher status also appear to exist peacefully, especially in the absence of Mrs. Maudsley when ill; while “the Hall” has a collective identity and image at cricket and in the eyes of the villagers. In “Great Expectations” the higher classes are significantly less unified, with the club which Pip and Herbert become members being all false joviality, masking the high levels of competition between the men, shown by the opposing Drummle and Pip. Hartley then, in presenting an upper class supportive of each other, does more to affirm its values than criticise them. Dickens on the other hand, can be seen to represent that wealth does not necessarily lead to contentment; Pip is more content when working hard for his money with Herbert abroad then living idle in London.
Ted, by his relationship with Marion at the same time as knowing of her engagement, is betraying his master in Triningham. Ted is consciously abandoning all respect for and obedience to the social hierarchy of reverence for social betters in favour and in consequence for a love that transcends but does not conquer these barriers. Their love was bound to be discovered, and doomed to fail; it was the ultimate in frivolity, self-indulgence and depravity. Hartley may be making a point that really there are two societies; the aristocracy and the non-aristocracy and no-one should attempt to mix or weaken the clear cut difference between the two. The outcome of so doing is Ted’s death, which although in appearance chivalric, has the unintended consequence of leaving Leo’s life and trust in emotion in tatters.
Dickens on the other hand might well argue that everyone is entitled and should be master of their own lives. Social rise or such aspirations are not decadent; pompous denial of others existence and right to self-improvement is. Dickens utopia would be a society where everyone can best fulfil their potential and enjoy equality of opportunity, different to Hartley’s utopia of respect, deference and obedience to social hierarchy.
The deadly nightshade plant discovered by Leo and Marcus outside the outhouses appears to warn the reader of Ted’s impending death. The plant can be seen to be symbolic of the relationship of Ted and Marion, being both deadly and beautiful, than it may also be seen as unnatural, by virtue of society’s rules at the time. Hartley has been credited with condemning the restriction of a loving relationship that would be beautiful and perhaps this is the case, though this not because he believed in social equality, but because he saw society in black and white: aristocracy and non-aristocracy, the latter inferior. Hartley would see no problem in a relationship between two members of the non-aristocracy. Indeed, he mourns the death of a beautiful relationship because it is the Maudsleys social and class aspirations to untouchable aristocracy that may well have prevented Marion being happy. It may be seen as surprising that Trininghams nature extends to marrying someone who does not fit the traditional aristocratic image of the pure, spotless, virgin bride; Trininghams expression that “nothing is ever a lady’s fault” appears to extend far; he must truly love her, and so we feel sorry for a man of gentle nobility whose finer love is usurped by that of passion.
Moreover, Leo is both fascinated by and fearful of the deadly nightshade, perhaps in a similar way to his feelings toward Marion and Ted’s relationship, and feels that the nightshades removal will ensure the end of Ted and Marion’s relationship in some magical way. In some way it is seen to protect their relationship a it guards where they meet. Arguably, if Leo had not “cast” his “magic spell” on the relationship, he would have been exonerated and not felt guilty for any of the tragic consequences which occurred as a result. Hartley implicated Leo in Ted’s death in order to allow him to make points in reference to the clash of the worlds of childhood and adulthood. Either Marion and Ted’s, or Mr. and Mrs. Maudsleys, social subversion is punished by a man’s death, which caused a boy to be scarred for life, and Mrs. Maudsley to be in a position from which she would never recover. These are the effects of the social subversion which Hartley may be arguing is a travesty of what is good, right and natural. The break down of the natural social order leaves society in turmoil. Hartley was content to criticise particularly the middle class for their insurrection of the class hierarchy on which he based many of his works. Unlike Dickens, Hartley was not an egalitarian. He warned of the destruction of the upper classes as a great mistake, and in “The Go-Between” looks back to a Britain where the hierarchy of society is still prominent, recognising that even then the scars of destruction was already setting in.
Dickens however, fought against such dogma and of gentry who relax on inherited wealth, extolling the values of hard-work and commitment. Magwitch’s moral regeneration begins when he puts Pip’s interests as he perceives them, those of another, above himself, and begins to work hard: “I lived rough, that you should live smooth; I worked hard, that you should be above work.” Pip’s moral corruption begins with his life of idleness and dissemination in a city that holds an inhumane attitude toward those in it, as Wemmick has to be out of town before he can think beyond monetary profit. Dickens shows the reader a young man of polished table manners, good income and ability to read and speak in French and German when Magwitch arrives from the East to announce that he is his benefactor, yet Pip is less of a gentle man than he has ever been. As Dickens working notes read “the one good thing he did in his prosperity, the only thing that endures and bears good fruit.” Pip saved Herbert from further following Pip along his road to destruction by buying him an apprenticeship, which he later profits from.
Marriage in “The Go-Between” is presented by Hartley as having little to do with mutual love, as Marion appears to respect rather than love Triningham. Instead marriage is related to class and status. As a result, Marion is torn between the man she wants in Ted and what her family expect of her in Triningham; a match to their advantage. They have money, yet no title. Triningham may be in a difficult financial position as he lets the house that his family has owned for generations, he needs middle-class capital, but he is a member of the ancient aristocracy, a lifestyle of the landed gentry to which the Maudsleys aspire. Alternatively, Dickens presents both happy; jovial, ambitious, hard working Herbert marries relatively poor, dutiful Clara, Joe marries Biddy, both of impeccable character; and unhappy marriages; wealthy Drummle and cruel, cold Estella who is really the daughter of a convict and a murderess, and finally Joe had been married to the vindictive, menacing Mrs. Joe. Happiness or otherwise in marriage clearly bears no relevance to social class or circumstance but to character. In “The Go-Between” it does at least have aberrance on who marries whom and so affects individuals’ happiness in marriage in that way. Ironically, it is the Maudsleys social rise by earnt, not inherited wealth that has made Marion beyond the reach of Ted Burgess, the working farmer. This distance is symbolised by the physical barrier of distance and geography in terms of the river. Whereas the distance between the Maudsleys and Triningham is non-existent as Triningham lives with the Maudsleys. Hartley may be arguing that although social status was becoming more mobile at the time, this is still restricted to upper regions of the middle classes, not to the vast majority of people, such as the village folk, and that greater social mobility, or restricting social mobility, would both have allowed the books disastrous ending to be avoided. For example, as Marian and Ted sing together after the cricket, onlookers comment;
“If it wasn’t for the difference, what a handsome pair they’d make.”
Even the working class recognise that there is a certain indefinable separation: a “difference” that leaves them Ted and Marion far apart.
Dickens views on class and status even extend to his presentation of women in the novel, looking with affection on women with a vocation, a job to do; the feminine maternal figures of Clara and Biddy, whose gentle, supportive, caring natures in looking after a father and Mrs. Joe is exalted by Dickens. Their caring nature lends them a grace and elegance far beyond Estella, who although beautiful, by her own admittance has “no heart”. Clara and Biddy are both of a lower social background and both focus on the needs of others. Upper Class women in the novel however, Estella and Miss. Havisham, are self obsessed, self absorbed and hurt, not care for others. I believe Dickens exalts the maternal, selfless woman and criticises the selfish women of the upper class.
Hartley however, in contrast, narrates his novel from the point of view of Leo, who admires Marion and Mrs. Maudsley for their command of themselves and situations, their strong character and disposition, the result of Marion’s high upbringing and Mrs. Maudsleys social aspirations. It is interesting that Hartley begins to narrate the novel from this viewpoint of respect for women of social status. Nevertheless, Hartley toward the end relays much more negative aspects of the Maudsleys. Marion is found having degrading sex with Ted outside in the rain, Marion at the end of the book is deluded with her perceptions clouded by her exaggeratedly high opinion of herself, and there is no comfort for her in her old age, shunned by her grandson. Mrs. Maudsley, admired at first, appears to become increasingly irrational, losing control of situations as the affair goes on. This may be seen to date from when she becomes ill, and the household gets on better and is more at peace without her. This may also, ridicule Leo’s vague illusion to her being one of the God’s of the zodiac: God’s presumably don’t get ill. Yet the decline and deterioration of Hartley’s initial appraisal of her really stems from when she gets up from the table and drags Leo outside through the pouring rain to the outhouses. She already seemed to know where she was going and so the fact that she took Leo to witness the affair is all the more degrading. The affair between Ted and Marion is what Hartley uses to reveal the inferiority of the non-aristocratic middle classes to the aristocracy; wealth is not the means by which a person’s class is judged, but the class to which he naturally belongs as a descendant. In this sense, the 10th and 11th Viscounts are not aristocratic in the true sense, perhaps explaining why they are restricted to a small section of the house.
Estella’s cold heart is untouched by others and it is only when she is vulnerable toward the end of the book, with her only possession being the ground on which “Satis House” (“Enough House”) once stood and now lies in ruins, that purified of social status and illusions to class, Dickens suggests she may be capable of loving. Satis House can even be seen to be symbolic of Estella herself; she held power over it, and could let Pip in with the key so as to allow Pip to come and be tortured by her cold heart and cruel tongue. Estella also suffered, decaying as Satis House had, she was rotten with Miss. Havisham’s spite. Yet at the end she has been “broken and bent into a better shape”, and her past lies in old ruins around her. Her past with Drummle has transformed her and made her better.
Dickens may be arguing that unless humans of every class are prepared to be vulnerable, we may quickly grow cold. Miss. Havisham loved when she was vulnerable, and suffered for it, but could it not be argued that she has suffered more since in a prison of her own making? By shutting society out she has left no room for deliverance from her suffering, by shutting the world out she lived in a decaying, grotty, ruin and no relief from her suffering came, her fire purged her of life in the most dreadful way. Dickens lesson cries strongest, with the broken Estella and Miss. Havisham: two who shut love and the world out, only to find that their lives decomposed around them. That “no man is an island” and any attempt to live like on will fail, as no one is self-sufficient. Jaggers relies on others to commit crimes, The Aged relies on Wemmick, Pip relies on Herbert and on the continuation of his expectations, Magwitch relies on not being caught at the end and Pip at the beginning, and Joe relies on Biddy’s help.
Hartley however, appears to be mourning the loss of a ruling class of nobility governing Britain, who were made vulnerable by the ambition and lack of respect for organic society amongst the inferior, subversive middle classes; watered down by their affairs, became reliant on them economically, and in the end were forced to accept equality and mergence.
Another interesting aspect as to the ways in which Dickens and Hartley present class and status is that of abuse. In “Great Expectations”, Mrs. Joe a member of the lower class relies on the paradoxically named “Tickler” to assert her authority over Joe and Pip; while on the contrary, Miss. Havisham uses perhaps a more adept, but not less damaging, form of abuse in applying emotional abuse to manipulate and mould Estella. An interesting issue is whether or not Leo was the victim of abuse in “The Go-Between”; he was certainly belittled and became self-conscious at Brandham Hall by his wearing of the Norfolk Suit. Moreover, the fact that Leo is never, that we see, to recover from the events that unfolded at Brandham Hall, that there is some form of parental neglect on the part of Mrs. Colston; the fact that he was so naïve, so unaware, gullible and easy to manipulate and fool may tend to this view. However, perhaps this is being unfair to Mrs. Colston, as she offers to discuss the incident with Leo and he refuses her offer, yet it is hard to avoid the feeling that it could have been possible to avoid Leo’s conclusion not to trust in emotion, had she helped Leo through the tragedy with the love and care of a close parent.
Both Leo and Pip become aware of their inferior social status in a world of social betters in very dramatic ways. Pip first becomes aware of his social inferiority when Estella shatters the innocence of his situation, of his “coarse hands and thick boots” and calling “Jacks” “Knaves”, innocence that would have left him, by his own admission, contented at the forge, happy as Estella called him: “nothing more than a poor labouring boy”. Pip recognises that it is this that has developed in him such a drive for social ambition and to better himself. Leo first becomes aware of his social inferiority at the dinner table when he is embarrassed and mocked for his thick Norfolk suit that left him sweltering in the heat. Marcus continues to enlighten Leo with his opinions on how people judge you on appearance throughout. It is Marion who rescues his situation when she takes him in to town to buy him an outfit, the cost of which, all contribute too. Leo also experiences a moment of realisation, during one tearful journey to the farm, when he begins to realise how Marion and Ted have exploited him for their own purposes. This after Leo questions the Marian he loves as to the messages she wants to continue sending the masculine Ted, admiring both greatly, even when engaged to Triningham. In both novels, socially inferior characters of lower class status are used and abused by those of higher social status. Pip is used by Miss. Havisham and Estella for their own purposes, sacrificed for their use even with the condescension of his own family, who send him knowing little of Miss. Havisham and little of what Pip is to do there, only that she is of higher social status. It is this abuse and his experiences at Satis House indeed, which make Pip, aspire to a class that’s abused him, somewhat contradictorily. Leo on the other hand, neither seeks nor expects a rise in social status or class position; he simply admires and esteems his betters, even to the extent of not questioning their conduct when they appear to behave incorrectly as Marion did. As a child, what he enjoys and craves most is praise, although it embarrasses him he takes great pleasure in it; especially if it comes from Triningham, Marion or Ted. Both narrators are vulnerable and have been exploited as the means for others to achieve their ends.
Hartley again mocks the Maudsleys by emphasising Marcus’ snobbish class views. For Marcus, there is a sort of siege mentality between them and ‘the village’, as he complains that the villagers “smell” and “stink”. His mother is likely to be the main influence for his high-strung opinions, as she refuses to have villagers on both sides of her at dinner. The middle class Maudsleys again seem to reject the lower echelons when Marian’s consistent lie is that she is visiting Nanny Robson when she is really seeing Ted. Visiting the local poor perhaps with a few provisions is traditionally a very aristocratic activity and is an ideal and practice that the Maudsleys are likely to aspire to. Marian is breaking social convention and ideals in seeing Ted, rejecting her innocent childhood in this abuse of her nanny, and again is pretentious by lying about it in saying she is fulfilling a noble action. Ironically, at the end of the novel Marian is living in the house in which her Nanny Robson used to live, and her memory is just as warped as she once claimed Nanny Robson’s was; she is living under the illusion that she is well known, well liked, and frequently visited, when the reality is that she is now more lonely than she ever has been. Seemingly, she has shamed the aristocratic circuit by deserting it so wantonly for an affair from which only Triningham could rescue her from the shame of, and this only temporarily, as after his death and the death of her brothers in WW2, she is left a friendless woman, abandoned by the upper-class serenity of the country, and by the working class who she has ruthlessly treated and instigated the death of one of their number.
Dickens in “Great Expectations” shows an upper class who, again, like to see themselves as wholly self-sufficient; not at all connected to the lowly working class whom they remain indifferent to. They care little for their plight, or even their condition, I suspect that many, like Pip did with Joe, would feel uncomfortable in their presence as feelings of advantage, dominance, power and control would undoubtedly whelm up in their self satisfied, egotistical souls. For example, Pip immediately feels that as a gentleman he has to distance himself from those socially inferior to him at the forge, and sets about going to plays a gentleman’s club and accumulating possessions. Yet Dickens throughout takes pleasure in reminding the reader that the two worlds coexist, conflict and clash with each other as I showed earlier. The two can attempt to avoid each other but will not succeed in doing so; they are intricately and irrefutably linked. As such, Dickens would argue that society needs to unite in order to better understand who composes it, to create an environment of freedom and the conditions in which everyone can flourish.
Hartley ingeniously presents the style of the cricketers reflecting their social status and character; Triningham plays graceful but is out for 11, Denys is erratic, and Ted is powerful and goes out for 89. Trininghams grace is beaten by Ted’s powerful masculinity, both on the cricket field and seemingly in the battle for the heart of Marion. Hartley uses the opportunity of plausibly the only meeting of the lower and upper classes to discuss the relationship between the two, creating interesting points to consider in relation to Dickens.
Leo is the one who saves the day for the hall by catching Ted out magnificently, possibly reflecting Leo having a certain degree of power over Ted’s fate. Moreover, the Halls narrow victory over the village at the cricket may say something more about the state of the society as presented in the book. Some may contend that the Halls victory represents the natural superiority of the ruling classes, with Triningham being the one who caught Ted out, albeit through Leo’s magnificent catch. On the other hand, other critics may maintain that the Halls narrow victory is not a reflection of their superiority but of their insecurity. Ted comes close to beating the hall with his wild and powerful blows, feasibly a reflection on the fact that the working class poses a threat to the wealthy.
This threat posed by the lower classes to the upper classes also underscores many of Dickens arguments in “Great Expectations”
Again, many at the hall, especially Mrs. Maudsley, so commanding in other situations, do not enjoy the visit from the village, nevertheless the village visit. There appears to be some obligation on the part of the hall in this instance: “Anyhow, we’ve said goodbye to the village for a year.” (Marcus). It is almost as if they have no choice but to invite the village over against their will, a symbol of social constraint reaching beyond restricting the actions of the illicit lovers, Ted and Marian. The halls victory may even be seen to be reliant on a good deal of luck in a fortuitous catch by Leo, someone of a lower social status than the majority of the team. Indeed, the halls team is made up of a good amount of servants whom Leo doesn’t pay any attention to in his snobbish, self-important and absorbed attitude, as they make up the numbers for the hall, may denote a shrinking distinction between the aristocratic and middle classes, and society as a whole: that the aristocracy and middle classes independence is built on unstable foundations. The class battle is waged without the upper classes having enough numbers to have a team purely with members of their own, needing to include those inferior to them. The halls narrow victory, on reading, may be overshadowed by Hartley concurring with Dickens view in “Great Expectations” that the wealthy’s materialism stands on the shaky grounds of the exclusion of many in society. At the same time, it may be argued that the lower classes are not excluded as they are invited round and society may be seen as the group composing of the greatest number. In which case, it is the aristocracy who are excluded from society.
Pip and Leo both aspire to greatness. Pip aspires to become a Gentleman; to have the money and status that he sees as making him worthy of Estella, who belongs to another world of which he is not apart. Leo, while bereft of Pip’s naked ambition, glories and delights in meditating on the grandeur and elegance of Brandham Hall, and the impending marriage of Lord Triningham and Marian; in the process, thriving, enjoying and searching for the praise of others.
Leo “loved” Marian, not because he really enjoys her company, as perhaps Ted and Triningham seem to, but because he admires respects and esteems her for her gentile elegance, command of situations, and beautiful femininity. He can neither relax in, nor truly enjoy her company, in a similar way to Mrs. Maudsley. Pip also aspires to Estella, not for Biddy’s characteristics of genuine kindness, care and consideration of others, but because of her un-winnable air, superior disposition and demeaning behaviour. From both these examples, it seems that the unattainable is what interests these boys in either affairs as in “The Go-Between” or love as in “Great Expectations”. Pessimistically, both value more morally questionable characters, rather than those such as Deny’s, Biddy or Joe who seem morally purer characters. Both are bad judges of character, and value social position above morality, until the end, where Pip realises Biddy’s true value, and through his illness, reliance on Joe, and return to poverty, becomes rid of the greater part of his snobbishness. Leo at the end is transformed from his innocence of social inequality into distance from all society because of the dangerous subversion of it. In this sense, Dickens novel ends on an optimistic note by its ambiguous ending with the mist’s rising; Hartley’s novel ends without real reconciliation, Marion is in denial, and Leo is once more the messenger.
The fundamental difference between the two novels is that in “Great Expectations”, individuals search for self-improvement is the product of an unequal society, while in “The Go-Between” the Maudsleys search for self-improvement is punished because it undermines and destabilises the natural order on which good society is built.